your interesting critical mass -- >> you're not suggesting that of every minority student that bought into a university -- got into a university only got into a physical education program that the program includes all the star athletes. every star athlete in the school happens to be black or hispanic or asian or something else. they have now reached critical mass of 20% that the university in the situation cannot use race in the holistic way that grutter permits? >everyone of their students who happens to be minority will end up in the program.

do you not think the university should consider it needs a different diversity? >> the factor is a choice. you have a critical mass of students. they choose to major in different things. that is the problem of classroom diversity. what are they not in the small classrooms? why does that happen? you would say that is an aberration. what is causing it? >> are facing the same thing when we are looking at the holistic measure we are looking for the student who is a nuclear scientist? >> no. it did not take into account the interests. but not as if you're going to major in physics. -- their not going to use you in major physics. they do it in a way that is premised on academic indexes.

the have a two-tiered emission system. what we see is that grutter has been perceived as a green light. it used race -- use race. that unchecked use of race which we think has been spawned by misreading of grutter needs to be stopped. >> is any different from how race is used in our military academies? >> no. two different questions. the harvard plan is a very different world. is a plan about individual

missions to establish the platonic ideal of a class. i am not the mixing people. i am admitting categories. in the way they do their system, you can figure out that two people would have had the same pai score. it allows them to boost be pai score. there are many candidates who'll score the same pai and a new boost some of them. beauty says we do not boost all of the minorities. -- duties as we do not boast all

the minorities but we want to boost the ones we like. if they get points in the same system for socio-economic disadvantages. the cannot even say at the beginning we do not have critical mass, we do not know what it is, if there is no judicial supervision. what they in point to are doing. what we have said goes back to how much you write it. you can clarify it. you can say it grutter requires you to do this. we said it would be satisfactory. to the extent you have the surviving side by side, there could be enormous confusion. >> you want me to look at the

critical mass, look at exactly how it is being done in taxes which has charts. i will then find enough of a difference and i can write some words that can be administered by two or 3000 federal justices as they try to do with programs. >> if you then look at some of the other deficiencies and clarify the consideration of reasonably available alternatives a necessity, even to read the weakness of the program to the absence of those factors. this is a narrow window.

>> once you reach a certain number then you cannot use race anymore. >> i do not want to get it. this is unacceptable. this is her right. katherine mangu-ward caller: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >>, charles heard talks about the campaign. he talks about how non-citizens can impact the number of votes

each state is given. we discussed the the the anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> linda mcmahon and chris murphy faced off in their second debate for the senate seat to replace joe lieberman. the rate this race a tossup. the debate is courtesy of -- of fox ct. >> good evening. tonight representing the connecticut u.s. senate debate between the republican candidates linda mcmahon and chris murphy. welcome. we look forward to hearing more about your ideas and maybe learning some new things.

this is going to cover a wide range of topics from the economy to foreign economy. joining me are three panelists. first, my co-hosts. >> there will be no opening statements. that will weaken the right to the questions and answers. there will be a 62nd closing statement. the candidates will each have 20 seconds to answer and then a reach for rebuttal. we do have timekeepers. they will signal when it is up. they will determine which candidate will start the debate. mr. murphy will go first in

answering the first question. mr. murphy will go first we get to the closing statements. there were chosen by the hartford courant. the audience here has promised to remain quiet and attentive up with no cheering or jeering and no applause or outburst set any kind during this debate. that takes more time away from learning something about these candidates. let's begin. our first topic is the nation's economy. lori peres will be asking the perce. >> you talked a lot about protecting american manufacturing jobs. your opponent has criticized you for not having a comprehensive

job plan. tell us about it. >> thank you to all of our sponsors for being here. thank you to ucon. this is special. we met each other at the law school. that is as dramatic as it gets for kathy and i. let's talk about this. protecting manufacturing is critical to protecting this stage. i do have a jobs plan. linda mcmahon to stop saying i don't. manufacturing is the heart of it. the buy-american caucus stands for this. our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund jobs here in suspe.

it relies heavily on manufacturing. >> you have talked quite a bit about your track record of creating jobs as a business owner. as a u.s. venture, how would you create jobs that >> i do have a six. plan. he does not have a plan. it cuts taxes on businesses so they're competitive. it rolls back regulations. it cut spending 1%. it empowers our work force. it calls for a comprehensive leadership policy that will continue to drill for natural gas while we develop our renewable.

i do have a, 3 pence live -- have a comprehensive 6poin point plan. aleksei of 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> this is made up. i have a jobs record. this idea to try to trivialize it, talk to the workers who are going to be put out of work because our government is shifting jobs overseas. it is their livelihood. we should take seriously the premise that we send these to washington they should be used to create jobs here. >> 30 seconds. >> i am not sure how this is an

integral part of your jobs plan. our deficit has increased. unemployment is on the rise. this is not part of an active jobs plan. and next topic bills was something we all worry about, it taxes. chris keating will ask that question first. >> there is consensus that extending the bush tax cut is a good idea. there is sharp disagreement about whether the what they should benefit as well. how will you keep taxes lower on the wealthiest americans and keep the jobs as a whole? >> i do call for tax cuts for the middle class.

i would keep all of the other tax brackets in place. there would be no gain or loss for others. even president obama in 2010 said we should not increase taxes will we are in a recession. we are barely out of a recession. i do not think now is the time to raise taxes. my plan does call for a tax cut for the middle class. the only one on the stage as called for a tax cut from the middle class. we need to make sure that if our economy starts to turn around and we are improving, i would recommend that we pay more taxes. i would be willing to pay more taxes as long as there's were paid to pay down the debts. >> could raising taxes on the wealthy prove to be a disincentive for investment and growth?

>> the centerpiece of mcmahon's plan is an extension of the bush tax cut on the wealthy. we know that tax cuts for the rich do not work. we tried it during the bush administration. if they worked, we would not be in the situation where we are today. if we had $7 million to allocate some out and our economy, it makes sense to give it to linda mcmahon in a new tax cut above and beyond current law or put it in the hands of middle-class families so it makes sense to give her another $7 million tax cut. does it make sense to get for another $7 million tax cut or try to put construction workers back on the job? there is a difference. we have to get serious about deficit reduction. i do not think we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. her plan is a recipe to explode

the deficit, and doing great harm to our economy. >> studies have shown that if your proposal of allowing all of the bush tax cut to go forward except those in the upper income, we will lose 700,000 jobs. that is not a plan to create jobs. my plan calls for keeping all of the tax levels the same except cutting taxes for the middle- class. i get no tax cut. what you are talking about is increase the taxes across the board. >> 30 seconds. >> here is what an economics professor says about her plan, he says it would balloon the deficit at a phenomenal rate. at some point arithmetic passed a matter. linda mcmahon calls for point

with -- 4 $1 trillion in tax cuts. current spending cuts are 360 billion. that is 12 times as many tax cut the spending cuts. that is why we are in the mess today. we're not serious about deficit reduction. this country's going to flip right back into a recession. >> thank you. that is a nice segue into cutting the national deficit. >> many believe the only way to reduce our deficit is to cut back on spending. please name three specific programs you could see eliminated. the senior political science major here wants to know how you can protect connecticut defense businesses? >> i have been proud to have stood up for spending cuts.

i do not think we need $6 billion in agricultural subsidies to midwestern farmers. i do not think we need a $3 million to put the engine. -- duplicative engine. i have been clear that on our medicare budget we need to gruen efficiency by stopping to pay insurance and drug companies. deficit-reduction has to be balanced. there's no way to do this without spending cuts and some additional revenue. linda mcmahon signed this pledge to grover norquist saying that she would never vote for any revenue increases into the federal government. we do not need to send someone to washington who will be part of the obstruction. we need to bring people together and recognize you have to be serious about spending cuts. the approach has to be balanced. >> we cannot close the dead by

not reducing spending. what he describes is a very dim view of the american economy. my plan will cut taxes for the middle class and put them back to work. they will have money in their pockets. they will pay more + taxes. it is growth in the economy. my plan is a pro-growth plan. we make our businesses competitive. we allow our job traders to continue to create jobs. our economy will grow. we have deficit reduction. we put people back to work. when people have money in their pocket, they buy more goods and services. when they buy more goods and services people make more. that is the way our economy grows. we need to reduce taxes and

spending. >> your rebuttal? this is a tried and true talking point. if you cut taxes for the wealthy, that money is going to trickle down to everybody else of the economy grows. we have data on this. we know what happens when we passed a massive-on finance tax -- maasivehe you i tax cuts fornced the wealthy. >> your thoughts? faileds talk about the policies. our debt has almost doubled. we have 9% unemployment in our state. i do not think his policies have

worked. we cannot keep sending the same people back to washington. >> thank you. you have been talking quite extensively about this next topic. laurie perez is quick to ask that appeared >> there has been a lot of debate around the question of how to protect social security while keeping the program costs in check. what is your solution? >> we absolutely are going to have to reform social security and medicare. there's one person who has agreed to take $716 billion out of medicare. i would never support a budget that would reduce benefits for social security or medicare to our seniors. i will certainly fight tooth and nail in never support a budget

that would reduce those benefits. we know we have to have reform. it is not sustainable. we have to get in a bipartisan fashion on how we're going to reform both. i am not going to support policy but reduced benefits to our seniors. >> she's not getting any answers. what are you going to do that she would not tell you. she just said to get everybody in a room and they would talk about it. you have to be honest with people about what your plans are. she told a tea party group that she supported ending social security of social changes are not made. she has been on the record over and over saying she would support privatizing medicare for

individuals which could result in $6,000 a more in costs. i think you have to be serious. i had been on record as being willing to support cut spending rate of growth of medicare so it take money out in the hands of insurance and drug companies. i am willing to be specific. linda mcmahon will not tell the voters where she stands. >> any specifics? >> you have to be honest. you're not being honest about this whole thing about my saying that i would and social security. this morning i said that was a false ad. i have said all along that i would never cut or support a budget that would cut budgets to our seniors. i will not.

medicare was passed not in a bipartisan way. i do think we have to have bipartisan action on these issues. >> still is given another 30 seconds to give you specifics and she still did not give you specifics. she does not want you to know what she is going to do. here is exactly what you said. he said "i believe in sunset provisions. we pass legislation like this so we can take a look at a 10 or 15 years down the road. i am not putting words in her mouth. i am just saying what she told a tea party group. the only time she is been on record giving specifics about her plan for social security and medicare. >> we're going to take a quick break and then be back with more questions. coming up next, like from the university of connecticut.

-- live from the university of connecticut. >> we continue our u.s. senate debate with linda mcmahon and chris murphy. there is one enormous hot-button issue that has divided lawmakers in washington and impacts everybody. that is the issue of universal health care. chris keating will ask the next question. >> the u.s. supreme court has upheld the key part of the universal health care plan including the much debated individual mandate. which specific elements should be left alone and which specific elements should be changed that ? >> it cost the family $3,000

every tiny have to take the medication. the insurance plan has a frigid every time he had to take the medication. -- it costs the family $3,000 every time they have to take medication. the interest plan affects this. there are thousands of families out there who are at risk of losing everything. there are individuals who lose their jobs simply because they get sick. i have been proud to stand up for the concept that health care should be a human rights, and not something you get if you are rich enough to afford it. i am proud to have played a role. >> i will like to replace the affordable health care act.

the cost of health care is going up. it is a good thing that children can see on their parents' policy until there are 26 years old. i do not think he should be penalized for pre-existing conditions. i do think we can bring down the cost of health care and have reform by having to buy bringing this across state mines? it brings down the cost of insurance that way. i think health care ought to be affordable. it ought to be acceptable. it ought to be portable. in this new bill there are 21 new tax increases. i do not think we should be increasing taxes.

>> talk to students here he will be able to stay on their parents' health care plan when they graduate. see it that has helped them. talk to seniors to go into the drugstore now and perhaps as drugs. they used to four dropfr they have voted to repeal the bill thirtysomething times. they never voted to replace it. linda mcmahon will be a vote to repeal of the bill, and not replace it. >> your the only one that has voted to take $617 billion out of medicare. it will affect our seniors. that money will grow for hospitals and doctors. if they're not reimbursed, about 15% will go out of business.

our seniors will not have access. that is not how we should be treating our seniors. that is how we need to reform this health care policy. >> women's issues played a role from both of you. >> you have book portrayed herself as an advocate of women's rights. how would you balance the desires of institutions that are philosophically opposed to birth control with the government's requirement under the new law that they provide contraception coverage? >> i am a pro-choice candidate. i believe women should have access to contraception. i am all about women's issues. i am a woman. i would not be opposed to them. i think the greatest thing that

has happened relative to women because of the failed policies of congressman murphy. more women are out of work. women have the same issues today that everyone has. the fate of their jobs. they're worried about making their house payments. they hope their kids are going to be able to get a job. these are the issues that are really facing our women today. when i am traveling around the state they're not talking about contraception. they're talking about how they're going to make ends meet. >> it may not be an issue to her but it is to millions of that do not have access to basic preventive health care, when their employer denies them access to birth control and contraception. that is an economic issue to

women in this state tour not making as much as linda mcmahon does. linda mcmahon support something called the blunt amendment. it would allow any employer across this country to deny their female employees access to birth control and contraception. the reason why the head of pro- choice america was here today campaigning for me, in today's to make sure linda mcmahon did not get elected was because pro- choice advocates around this country know that linda mcmahon would empower a radical like that would deny a woman's right to choose and would vote to and contraception coverage for millions of women.

access tor women's contraception. i am a pro-choice candidate. always have been. i have not changed that. >> thank you very much. >> i do not know whether she just did not read, but it is not about religious employers. it would allow any religious or non-religious employer to in contraceptive coverage for their employers. the summer house he said realized it was a great -- lyndon rakowski said she [unintelligible] you cannot continue to run away from the things you said you would support. he said it would deny women access to contraception. >> thank you very much. the next topic is about the concept. >> several of our readers and

viewers including sheila of o'conor says they have been short on the issues. do you have any plans going forward? >> i think this campaign has to be about the issues. there are big differences between linda mcmahon and i when it comes to the issues. one reporter asked her campaign why she was not talking more about the issues, why she was engaging in these character assaults against me and my family. her campaign manager said talking about the issues would be senseless exercise. it would be for linda mcmahon. on the issues, she is wrong. she is not where the state is when it comes to passing another tax cut for the rich. she's got where the state is when it comes to protecting women's health care. she is not where the state is when it comes to standing up to outsourcing. i do think this campaign should about the issues.

i hope the next three weeks of this campaign are spent talking about the real issue differences between linda mcmahon and i a. the difference in our professional backgrounds and not the kind of personal attacks we have seen in her add. s. >> i've been talking since my campaign began about my jobs plan. the primary issue in the economy. he has no plan. 23 million people are either out of work are looking for work.

if you want to focus on the issues, it is the issue of whether or not he will focus on the attendance record. he needs to be honest with the people of connecticut about these issues. >> rebuttal? >> the asset she was stop the character assaults. she lifted almost fully

paragraph and sentences from website and washington written by people who do not have connected interests at heart. >> want to remind you about your pledge not to cheer or plot so we can have more time for the questions and answers. >> there have been plenty of negative ads coming from congressman murphy as well. he is not talked about the issues. this morning our host said they are accusing this relative to social security and medicare was false. let's make sure we have the facts straight year the need to be honest with the people of connecticut. come clean about your attendance record.

>> you have run at sang in 2008 that they have given your opponent a special below market loan that ordinary people could not get in suggesting the deal was linked to mr. murphy's vote on the bailout bill. your campaign has also said that only mr. murphy now is the detail of the loans. if you do not know the details, what are you saying he got a special loan? >> he represented the bank. he had foreclosure issues. the banks bailed him out. he sat on the finance committee. that bank received $400 million of special bailout money.

i do you nor the bank has been willing to release the arguments. >> he responded with a campaign describing her as false. he then cited a different statistic touting your voting record. why did you describe per ads as false? >> what she is trying to essentially say is about my work ethic. the people of the fed district know that i have worked my tail off for them. i have played well about my weight in winning product and or them. but this attack, and into history is ludicrous. everybody who has looked at this

from the hartford courant to the connecticut post have all said it is not true. and the hypocrisy from linda mcmahon attacking me on this issue when she took 36 years to pay back creditors and a $1 million bankruptcy during the exact time she was running this ad. she was $26,000 overdue on the taxes on her penthouse in stanford which is mind blowing. linda mcmahon is addicted to personal attacks. it is such a tight to do two years ago-- it is what she tried to do two years ago and she is doing it again. >> he says everybody that looked at his record has said it is all. nobody has seen the records. just so your documents. what you do that, he would lay all of this to rest. i think personal integrity is an

issue. only in washington could you miss 75% of your job, get paid one descended thousand dollars a year -- get paid $170,000 a year and they get a promotion. that would not happen in the private sector -- sector pierre >> linda mcmahon cannot talk about the issues in the campaign. she referred to this character set -- character assassinations. on this voting issue, hypocrisy is stunning. linda mcmahon admits that before she was running a the senate, she hardly ever voted. she had to show up just once a year to vote and she herself admits that she barely ever did it. spare me the indignation on this issue when linda mcmahon has not done her basic duty. >> thank you. >> that is absolutely false. and you know it. >> linda mcmahon, you can use

that time to bring that up and in the room bottle to the next question if you like. professor will ask the next question. >> i would like to continue this line of questioning. both of you at that point had challenges when it comes to paying your debt. mr. murphy, we would like to know what voters should make of these lapses on your part and on the part of your opponent. >> we both had financial issues in our life. the difference is that when i made mistakes, i corrected them. when linda mcmahon made mistakes, she waited to correct them until she was two months away from an election. he had a $1 million bankruptcy and did not payback as creditors until she was asking for people's votes. i do not think it is credible that she did not know who she owed money to or how much she owed money -- or how much money

she owed. his campaign ultimately has to be about the people of this state and about what our respective plans for this budget mean for the people. you want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's talk about linda mcmahon's economic plan that would cut taxes by 12 times as much as spending. with all due respect, i think the people of the state want us to be talking about that. >> what should voters make of these lapses on the part of you and your point? >> everybody can have a financial difficulty. a couple of missed mortgage payments and credit-card payments is different. but i am asking he come clean about is the special -- special interest loan. one that men regular middle- class folks in connecticut could not get. he says he voted 97% of the time

and he did but he did not show up for 75% of his committee hearings and he would never learned about the issues. i will not vote just down party lines. i am an independent thinker and i will be different than my party on a lot of votes. but to just show up to vote without getting the information, i cannot think that is what the people of connecticut want to see. so i am challenging congressman murphy to come clean and show us his records. it is not just about missing some payments. this is about an issue of integrity and ethics. >> mr. murphy, your rebuttal. >> i think this is about character. when you make mistakes, do you fix them? i did. linda mcmahon didn't. when she old people money, she ran away from those obligations. for 36 years, she has been pulling in salaries of $40 million a year and still could

not comeo pay back the people of connecticut that she owed. if you want to talk about this issue, the way you handle your problems and the way that i handled mind to speak to differences between us. >> i did eventually pay -- [laughter] >> i paid them. i did it with my money. at a special loan from the bank. -- you got a special loan from the bank. [applause] i will spend my money making sure people like you do not go back to washington and spend money from the people of connecticut. >> we will pause for a break. i think we need one. we will be back with more questions for connecticut's u.s. senate candidates live from the university of connecticut.

>> continuing now at the u.s. senate debate between linda mcmahon and chris murphy. linda mcmahon, this race is important for connecticut and the nation. the outcome could go a long way toward deciding which party controls the senate. why is it important your party control the senate in 2013? >> i think what we have seen over the past four years are filled policies of an administration where our debt and deficit has increased, our respect around the world has declined. i believe we need to have senators in washington who are going to make sure those qualities are restored to america. the biggest issues we face today are jobs and the economy.

we cannot have a strong foreign- policy if we do not have a strong economy. we cannot have a strong offense -- defense if we do not have a strong economy. the greatest debt to our security is debt. we have to make sure we are putting policies in place to get our people back to work. this administration, congress and murphy has been in washington but failed policies. --w ith failed policies. we need to change that. >> that was not the answer to the question. the answer to the question was why should the republicans be in charge of the united states senate? what be honest. -- let's be hoenst. this is not the republican party of our parents are grandparents. linda mcmahon, a republican majority in the senate who would stop at nothing to it and a

woman's right to choose. it would stop at nothing to destroy environmental protection, a party that now denies global warming even exist. a party that would seek to perpetuate another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. boaters are deciding between linda mcmahon and myself but they are also deciding whether the tea party should be in charge of the united states senate or democrats. i think both are relevant considerations but there are national implications to this race. and the kind people that linda mcmahon would empower do not have connecticut postal interests at heart. >> congressman murphy still tries to put me into a corner but he knows that is not my plan. i am an independent thinker. he knows i differ from my party on various issues. i will be an independent thinker

in washington. i will not vote for my party 98% of the time. i bring to the table experience of job creation, of putting people back to work and i have a plan to do that. he does not. >> mr. murphy, your rebuttal. >> what are all these republican senators coming to connecticut to campaign for linda mcmahon? because they know she will vote for them. the look of what she stands for. she stands with the national republicans on the amendment. she stands with the national republicans on more tax cuts for the wealthy and when it comes to drilling rather than investment in renewable energy. on issue after issue, she stands with them which is why they are so enthusiastic about coming to connecticut to hope that she is the 51st vote for a tea party republican majority in the senate. >> thank you very much.

our next topic is one the u.s. senators deal with extensively -- foreign affairs. >> mr. murphy as we wind down the american presence in afghanistan and the troops come home, other problems are rising in the middle east. we saw that images of the u.s. embassy under attack in in -- and libya. how aggressive to the united states be when it comes to getting involved in internal affairs of these and other countries? >> i ran for congress in 2006. i cannot sit back and that my congresswoman at the time continue president bush's open ended commitment there. i put myself on the line to bring our troops home. i am now a believer that it is time to wrap up our commitment in afghanistan. i do not think it is in our strategic interest to stay there any longer and i do not think we can afford to spend $2 billion a

week. we should bring our men and women home. i fought hard to use my voice and vote to do that. moving forward, we have to be a lot more stingy about how we use american resources abroad. and commit ourselves to the notion that if we do engage in foreign intervention, it has to be in a multilateral way. the biggest mistake we have made is one we have gone in alone. i have been proud of my commitment to bringing our troops home from afghanistan. my commitment to any foreign policy based on a more stringent intervention. that is the kind of senator i will be. >> linda mcmahon, same question. >> i did not think the united states should be involved until war in another country unless a vital u.s. interest is at stake. i am also for bringing our troops home from afghanistan.

along the timetable that president obama has established. i do not think that what of god in -- would have gone in and [unintelligible] we have to have a strong foreign-policy. i believe peace through strength. congressman murphy has voted twice to de-fund our jobs vote, costing our state as many as 35 jobs 3 we need to have a strong defense. we cannot have a strong defense if we de-fund this budget, especially when every other member of the connecticut delegation voted for it. >> i am proud of in part of a delegation that one -- won a commitment to build two submarines. and a single source contact for the new engine on the torrance latter to be built. there is a gimmick between linda

mcmahon and i on afghanistan. she wants to sit there for another two years. expensive of's too a commitment and i would rather see those dollars spent on defense production and at the connecticut rather than a war overseas. >> defense production, congressman, you recently voted twice to make sure of the authorization bill. we did not get the jobs. as many as 35,000. we could lose 1 million jobs nationwide and that a 35,000 jobs. we have to have a strong defense but record recently is not one that shows you are willing to support their jobs right here in our state. >> our next question, you will each have 60 seconds to answer.

there will be no rebuttals. >> linda mcmahon, you touted your experience in business as a key asset but some of your critics say that does not qualify you to handle the business of the united states senate. they have a fair point. >> i think what we need to do is to send someone to washington who was had experience creating jobs. beneath a blend of representation -- we need a blend of representation. the biggest hole we have is those of the the private sector for businesses. a ceo has to build a team to execute the vision, manage them, motivates them, and lead them. i'm good at that. i have a good track record at that. i think those skills are missing in washington. we need business leaders to understand that when you negotiate, you debate robustly but when you walk away, each

side has gotten somewhat -- some of what it wanted but not all of what it wanted. that is missing in washington today. nobody is coming to the middle to negotiate. i am not talking about giving up principles. i'm talking about negotiating for the good of our country. the ceo of starbucks said he hoped when the elections were over, the american public would think they would -- it would think they had won. >> mr. murphy, have been criticized as some who has no experience other than being a that the politics. do they have a fair point? what not every ceo is qualified to be united states senator. linda mcmahon as an example of the kind of ceo that is not. she denies her people health care with a badly needed it. to ship jobs overseas. she took $10 million in tax

credits from the state designed to create jobs and laid off & l for work force by making $46 million. the fis in to take a bit of a pickett to keep people a employed. of aefusing to take a bit f pay cut to keep people employed. linda mcmahon has shown consistently that as a ceo, she put her interest first over and over again, at the expense of the state, our tax players and employees that rely on her. i do not fit that qualifies you to be a u.s. senator. >> at this point, each candidate will have to 1 minutes to offer a closing statement. based on the drawing to determine the speaking order, mr. murphy will go first. you have 60 seconds. >> again, taking very much to our sponsors today. earlier in the debate, linda mcmahon got a question about why

she cannot talk about something other than personal attacks. she entered it by lodging more personal attacks against me and my family. that is what she will try to make the rest of this race about. as i challenge the people of the state at our debate on sunday, did not let her do it. make this race be about you. as the question but one of us is going to stand up for the seniors of the state to cannot have their medicare privatized, who will stand up for the factory worker who cannot continue to see jobs sent overseas. he will stand up for students here at uconn? if that is the question in this race, there is only one choice. linda mcmahon has stood up only for herself, not for us. my career has been dedicated to fighting for the people of this state and i cannot wait to continue to do it as a u.s. senator. thank you offer being here tonight. >> linda mcmahon, you have one

minute. >> i like to thank our hosts, panelists and for those of you who joined us this evening. connecticut, it is time. time to elect a senator who is a job creator with a real plan for putting people back to work. who will cut taxes for the middle class, who values showing up for work. it cannot be bought by special interests. we do not need another senator whose primary aspiration is a political career. we need someone who will tell us that our kids and grandkids will be better off than we are. we cannot afford six more years of congressman murphy's failed policies. of higher unemployment, higher costs for gassed -- for gas and groceries. a low wages and homes moving into foreclosure. connecticut, it is time. time to elect a senator who will bring knowledge and experience

to create jobs and who believe that america's best days are ahead. i am linda mcmahon and i would be honored to have your vote on november 6 requesting the very much -- november 6. >> thank you very much. we would like to thank the hartford courant and our panelists. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mary bono mack. >> we use 25% of the world's oil. what that means is we cannot simply drill our way out of the problem. and we are not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels the create global warming. we are going to have to, with alternatives and that means the united states government is

working with the private sector to fund the kind of innovation we can then export to countries like china that also need energy and are setting up 1 coal power plant a week. we need to help them create and indeed in need. >> he may not have noticed but we have lights around here. >> i have to try to keep up with john. >> here is a follow-up to that. should we fund a manhattan-like product to develop a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy source of the fund 100,000 rogers across america, the kind of industry that developed silicon valley? >> research and development investment on the part of that you did use a on the part -- on the part of the us government is

productive. >> before president obama and mitt romney faced questions from undecided voters, watched the first president of town hall from our are priced fares starting at 7:00 eastern, senators barack obama and john mccain in 2008. then george bush, bill clinton and ross perot. carper shares at 7:00 eastern. >> today on our facebook page, we are asking what is your favorite moments from a presidential town hall debate. join the discussion and see what others are saying. >> mary bono mack and democratic

challenger raul ruiz face off in their only televised debate in the california's 36 congressional debate. the debate is moderated by the desert sun and kmir 6. this is an hour. >> good evening. welcome to this special decision 2012 by white and blue coverage of the 36th congressional district debate between congress woman mary bono mack and dr. raul ruiz. tonight's debate is presented by kmir 6 and the desteert sun. before getting down to business, keep in mind this is the first and only televised debate -- the pre -- debate between the candidates. i will be acting as your moderator. on the panel is a political correspondent for "the desert sun."

my co-anchor has been reporting for 8 years now. there will be asking tough questions tonight while i try to keep the candidates under control and our debate on time. the rules of the debate are simple. the candidates agree to answer questions and debate one another on issues related to domestic and foreign policy. the candidate and answering the question first will have two minutes to reply. the other candidate will have one minute to respond. candidates are not allowed to address each other with questions directly and there is no audience inside the studio tonight. the candidates are allowed to take notes. each candidate will have three minutes to make an opening statement.

we will wrap things up by providing the candidates with another three minutes each for their closing statements. the candidates from the brand new 36 congressional districts are incumbent republican mary bono mack. she is serving her eighth term in the u.s. house of representatives. the congressman is the chair of the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade, as well as a member of the energy and commerce committee. her democratic challenger is dr. raul ruiz. this is his first campaign for public office. he grew up in the coachella valley. welcome to both of you. earlier, we had a coin toss to determine who we would hear from first.

you have three minutes. >> thank you so much. thank you to all the voters. i grew up right here in the desert. the son of farmworkers. my first home was a trailer. my parents cannot afford to send me to college, so i put on my only suit. the one i wore to church, it was itchy and two sizes too big. i went from business to business handing the store owners a contract and asking them to invest in their community by investing in my education. i promise to come back as a doctor. with their help, i went to ucla and then to harvard medical school, where i became the first latino to receive three graduate degrees from harvard. true to my promise, i came home as an e.r. doctor. i am living proof of the american dream. for too many people, the american dream is in danger because washington is broken.

too many workers have lost their jobs. too many retirees have lost their savings. too many students cannot afford college. our congresswoman has lost touch with the people. instead of looking out for us, they're focused on partisan bickering, scoring political points, and looking out for themselves and their wealthy donors. congresswoman's response to our problems is more of the same. more bickering, or partisanship, and more looking out for herself instead of us. instead of listening to people and proposing real solutions, she relies on the same old worn out partisan playbook that does nothing to create jobs or help seniors on fixed incomes. watch tonight how many time she talks and says empty phrases. every time you hear them, remind yourself, this is the language of gridlock. congresswoman, you are not running against nancy pelosi and tonight, you are not in washington.

you are here in the coachella valley, where people know the name calling and playing politics and do not solve problems. mary bono mack was not always this way, but washington has changed her. she even voted to turn medicare into a voucher program. she voted nine times to raise her own pay. there are a lot more examples. republicans, democrats, independentss, we're not each other's enemies. our enemies are the high unemployment rate, the skyrocketing cost of predict -- prescription drugs, and the high-school dropout rate. i am running for congress because i want to help revive the american dream for middle- class families and seniors. i look forward to talking about those issues tonight. >> thank you very much. >> tonight i really wanted to talk to all of you about the economy, health care and energy. real issues that affect real

people. first, i must tell you what i recently learned about my opponent. information that he is clearly tried to hide and the local press has never investigated. everything i tell you is documented fact and it is awful. when the doctor was a student at harvard, he led protests against the celebration of thanksgiving. no joke. he led protests against thanksgiving day. because he opposes what thanksgiving stands for and would represent spread he even called for smashing plymouth rock, a symbol of america's freedom. he said "crush this rock and all that represents." what it represents, doctor, is the hopes and dreams of people fleeing from tyranny and seeking freedom. he should also know that abraham

lincoln established thanksgiving to unite and heal a divided country during the civil war. the truly disturbing parts was to he was demonstrating with and what he was demonstrating for. during one of his protest, and he read a letter expressing support from a man convicted of viciously slaughtering two fbi agents in south dakota. he murdered them, the agents were wounded, defenseless and lying on the ground. one agent even lifted his hand to shield himself from the barrel of a gun. he stood over him, pulled the trigger and sent a bullet into his skull. this despicable crime was the work of a man the doctor not once released from prison. during another protest, a different cop killer had a statement read calling this giving an american holocaust.

"the greatest single act of terrorism to date or not perpetrated by osama bin laden, but by the u.s. military when it dropped atomic bombs on the people of hiroshima and nagasaki." and other speaker -- you get the idea. these kinds of protests, you knew what they were. he participated and led them six years in a row. charging the police with brutality. he hid his past because he knew it would destroy his political future. the local press has to explain why they refuse to investigate and report on his background. i urge you to go on-line and looked at these facts for yourself. i am sure you will be as outraged as i am.

>> thank you for that. time now to get down to the questions and answers. >> in a recent television ads, and you vowed to voters that you will never vote to cut medicare or social security. not once, not twice, never. many experts have argued the existing programs are fiscally unsustainable. do you think you are being disingenuous to voters when you promise not to support any cuts? how else do you plan to save the two programs? >> congresswoman made some very strong accusations during her opening statement. what i want to say is congresswoman, my mother makes a wonderful thanksgiving turkey and i would love to invite you to our thanksgiving celebration this year. what is shameful, congresswoman, is that you are calling the anti-american force celebrating our native american heritage, for giving voice to our native american cultural roots and the first american so that their voice can be a part of our american story.

here are the facts. an elder by the name of sam was going to be beaten. i shielded him with my body and i got beaten to and i got arrested. the city dropped all the charges and they paid $100,000 in scholarship funds for native american students. congresswoman, your father and my two uncles fought in wars so that we can have those freedoms to give voice. you mentioned the leonard, i am not a supporter. i do not support anybody who murders in the fbi agent. if they do, they should be convicted to the fullest extent of a law. she mentions 9/11 attacks and hiroshima bombs, i did not make

those comments. people are tired of guilt by association politics. are we to assume that just recently you took an award from an organization that minimizes domestic violence and believes in legitimate rape, where the actual president has said that the women and battered movement has outlived its time? >> i am going to stop you there. you did not answer the question. she wishes to move on with the questions. >> can we do both? >> dr., can you please answer the question? >> repeat the question. >> you've got to voters that you will never vote to cut medicare or social security. not once, not twice, never. many experts have argued the existing programs are fiscally

unsustainable. do you think you are being disingenuous to voters? >> over 50% of my patients in the emergency department use medicare. i know very well how important medicare is to them. medicare is america's promise to our seniors. if you work hard and pay your taxes, when you become a senior, you will be guaranteed medical coverage. the congresswoman has broken that promise, not once, but twice. she wants to turn medicare into of private voucher to pawn care- like system that would cause seniors $6,000 out of pocket the year. that is way too much for our seniors today. instead of tackling our health care costs under deficit, she wants to put the burden of those costs on the shoulders of our seniors.

i am sure she will talk about obamacare and make the claim -- >> your time is up. >> first of all, you were there. you know exactly what you dead. it is written in multiples -- you knew exactly what you did. it is still today on the web site. i'm your own web site, the data still exists about your antics. you cannot deny that you walked people to plymouth rock and said crush this and all that stands for. i do believe you owe an explanation to the american people. i do not quite understand the reporting, the police say you were belligerent. you then said, i was just protecting children from being pepper sprayed.

who are you really? we do not know who you are. furthermore, 2002, when you were cochairing this event, we had troops in harm's way in afghanistan. he stood there, your organizational culture said, we stand with our brothers in iraq and afghanistan and he did not mean american troops. if you would like to announce that, good for you. but the records shows you how a six-year history of these protests. medicare, you want to talk about throwing around interesting factoids. he is clearly taking is talking points -- his ads claiming exactly what he just sat on the stage was one of the biggest swappers of the year. -- whoppers of the year.

medicare is going broke. one would think that you would recognize that we do have a promise to our seniors, anybody in medicare now, anybody 55 and older would remain in that system of medicare. this is not just about seniors. it is about the totality of our nation. it is about our children and our grandchildren. what you find a acceptable is that everything we do today, it is put on a credit card that future generations will have to pay for. i have the most beautiful grandbaby in the world. i think about my children and my grandchildren. >> thank you, congresswomen. i would like to remind candidates. we ask the questions, let you guys answer them.

he did not address each other. we will give you plenty of time to respond. we will move on to the next topic. >> i believe i have a bottle. -- rebuttal. >> you have 30 seconds. >> there was a full investigation and the charges were dropped. the statement said other people made, i did not make those statements. if you believe i made those statements, other people who make statements on your behalf, believing in the concept of legitimate rape, that is horrible. the way we will protect medicare is by tackling the real problem, which is health care cost. not turning it into a voucher system. allowing medicare to negotiate it drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. >> next question. >> congresswoman, in october

2009, the partnership unveiled a blueprint that determined the value need to diversify its economy. what role does the federal government had in creating those jobs? >> thank you, elisabeth. i would like to point out an example of somebody who benefited from the work i did. a bipartisan bill that i signed into law and was signed by president obama. all my bills are bipartisan. if you go to -- ask them about the bill i pass that improve the consumer product safety commission and the rules and regulations they have to live under. go to any of the growers out here in the desert.

ask about the country of origin labeling bill. if the american farmer had the opportunity to get on their produce, grown in the u.s.a., a product of the u.s.a., people would buy their produce. i have had a congressional hearing promoting tourism. i had spotlight come testify before the congress to share his expert -- scott white come testify before the congress. i fight very hard for them, i always have. i have a very strong record of achievement on their behalf. >> congresswoman, i remember this commercial back in the 1980's were there was a little lady who said, where is the beef? where are the jobs? everything you listed is a failure to deliver on jobs right here at home.

in fact, you have voted to give tax breaks to corporations who ship jobs overseas. for subsidies for big oil. you have taxed our job creators. under the right in plan, you voted to increase taxes for that middle-class. in order to create jobs right here in our district, we need to decrease taxes on her middle class and small businesses. -- decrease taxes on middle- class and small businesses. i worked with them and helping them develop their pipeline programs for our students in order to get jobs. those same students york -- you voted to cut their pell grants. >> folks, it is really sad to hear what he is saying. do me a favor, ask them yourself.

look at their fine products. did mary bono mack help save jobs? hear what they have to say. those speak to some of the growers. ask them, did country of origin labeling helped to save jobs? riverside medical center from day one. >> thank you so much. >> an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the united states. a recent study by uc-berkeley found 67% of californians feel the federal government should offer apac to citizenship. do you agree -- should offer a path to citizenship. do you agree? >> i am not for amnesty. i am for and earned path to citizenship.

this is a clear example of how congress is broken and how the congressman has has 14 years to lead and she has failed to deliver. she will talk about how important immigration is to this district. our economy depends on it. with our tourism, agriculture, and our construction. this is what we need a comprehensive immigration reform. we need to secure our borders with more agents and more technology. we need to make sure our economic industry that we thrive on with agriculture, construction, it can have the labor pool that they need. we need to create an earned path to citizenship that respects the laws. one thing i would vote for would be the dream act.

risking their lives for our country and for us and our freedoms. congresswoman mary bono mack has filled to lead in this example. she has voted against the dream act. >> congressman, you have one minute. >> i stance on immigration is the same as it was two years ago. it is a very logical stance on immigration. i believe we need strong interior enforcement mechanisms and i believe we need a non- amnesty program for people to use to be employed in the united states of america. let me say something about the dream act. president obama, nancy pelosi, and harry reid have the perfect trifecta. they had the senate and the white house, two years to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and they did nothing. they did not have a single bipartisan meeting at the white

house. i do not support president obama did what he likes to do, an executive order on the dream act. >> thank you. >> you are not running against nancy pelosi. this is precisely the language of gridlock that is evident as to why we have a do nothing congress. one of the things we have to do is to realize that the congresswoman has failed to lead. she talks a big game, but she has failed to deliver. her language, when she attacks and attacks is very partisan. >> the next question.

>> in your last debate, you refused to disclose your personal fought on california's prop. 8, which bans same-sex marriage. now that it is being looked at by the federal court, it has become a federal constitutional issue that has national implications on the legality of same-sex marriages. don't you think residents deserve to know where you stand on the issue? >> thank you for the question. i do need to go back to one thing. it is critically important that people recognize a vote for the doctor is a vote for nancy pelosi. the very first he would take in congress to be his vote to confirm nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. very important people understand that. back to the question of same-sex marriage. i know you bring this up every

time you can. i am -- it is clear where i am with my family. my transgendered stepson, we have a close relationship. it is clear i have a big heart and i do not have a bigoted bone in my body. you try to pigeonhole me and to take in a position on a state issue. it was not a federal issue up for me to decide. look at my history. i have twice voted against constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. that speaks for itself. my family is the modern family before there was even a modern family. don't ask, don't tell, i voted against the first one. it was a nancy pelosi political vote. i supported the repeal of don't

ask, don't tell. has there been a problem with the repeal of don't ask don't tell? i was so happy to hear them say, no, there has been no problem. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> she has gone washington and she thinks she is here with nancy pelosi. one of the things we really need to see, this is another of example of a failed leadership. she dodged the question. she must be really good at dodge ball. there are a thousand people in this district that this is very important issue for. i believe that marriage equality is the right. i believe in marriage equality because i am against any form of discrimination, whether gender, race, or the person that you love.

anybody who loves each other, who wants to be a committed relationship, should have the right to marry. congresswoman, yes or no vote, you have thousands of residents who want to know if you believe in their right to marry. >> you must have me confused with a supreme court justice. i am not that. this decision is in the courts. it will make its way to the supreme court of the united states. i have a very clear record on these things. i have a clear record on nondiscrimination and the work place. i have a very clear record with these issues. it is so sad that some like you always seeks to divide people rather than unite them. >> congresswoman thank you. >> security concerns in libya

made it difficult for the united states to figure out exactly how the ambassador and other americans were killed. both you and your opponent denounced the attacks. whetherve kept quiet on president obama has been taking the appropriate steps. but you think of the white house response? -- what do you think of the white house response? >> i firmly believe that america is the beacon of democracy and the leaders of the free world. i firmly believe that our priorities should be the security of america and americans around the globe and our friends in israel and all of our allies in the area. once this becomes an issue of -- once this becomes an issue where we start to focus on the terrorist acts around the world, we start to realize our troops need more than lip service.

we need to make sure that we protect america and americans and we honor our troops. she's talked about how she supports our troops, she has decreased millions of dollars of help -- and mental health for them. she has cut the ability for families of soldiers who have died to stay in their homes. she is voted against the veterans bill -- and veterans benefits bill and she has voted against the post-9/11 bill. all this at the same time that she has voted nine times to increase her own pay. i couldn't let you get away with

that, congresswoman bono mack. >> thank you. i wish i had a lot more time to talk about this than that. but once again, this is very sad. i do not know who dr. use is, but all of this information about what he stood for, that will be online by the end of the night, if it's not already. please go to it and look it up yourself. let me just say this about libya. let me say how important this is, not just what happened, but how it happened. first of all, ambassador stevens wrote to the secretary of state and others and said i know mr. are al qaeda cells here in libya, and i don't feel safe. those pleas were ignored. why did that happen? this white house and people like dr. ruiz, who are sympathizers and apologists for the greatness of america still believe that -- they believe that actually, if we apologize to our opponents, if we're just nice to them, they'll be nice to us in return. because of this our country is less safe, it is a much more dangerous place today than it was four years ago. >> thank you, congresswoman. dr. ruiz, you have 30 seconds to rebut.

>> congresswoman continues to speak the language of gridlock. this is clear evidence why congress is broken. now, over and over she will repeat this incident in the city of plymouth, and it's a shame, it is a shame, it is a shame that you are trying to make me seem like i'm anti-american. >> six years, six years, six years. >> the beauty of america, for which my father and your uncles went to war for were to protect our ability to give voice to our american heritage to, give them a voice in our american story, congresswoman. >> all right, thank you, dr. ruiz. next question. >> congresswoman, this is for you -- two years ago you told the "desert sun" that it was in our best interest that the united states remain in both iraq and afghanistan. last months you told the

veterans that if president obama couldn't outline a clear and concise explanation of why troops remain in afghanistan, then the u.s. should "get the hell out." what prompted such a change in perspective, and if the u.s. pulled out immediately, how do you address concern that the enemy will fill the void? >> let me go back to a little bit more thorough reporting than that. and the article is there. but what i did say is as long as president obama cannot articulate to the american people why we are there and what we are doing, but allowing our troops to flounder because he feels comfortable because he has given a timeline for withdrawal, that troubles me greatly. under this presidential leadership, yes, i am concerned about our troops being deployed in afghanistan, absolutely. but you know what else troubles me about this timeline of president obama's, which is an arbitrary political timeline? he didn't get that from the generals, he got it from his political advisors. let me tell you what troubles me the most. you know, i think women are more concerned about security than anything else right now. nobody -- and i have to tell you last night i was a little dismayed, after joe biden was busy defending iran and even

paul ryan's answer on this was a little bit incomplete for me, too. nobody has said to the american people what i need to know when we pull out our troops from afghanistan, are we safer off as a nation than when our troops were there? will al qaeda once again have the ability to take root in afghanistan and once again launch a terrorist attack against us? he needs to answer that question. he doesn't care. all president obama wants to do is have a political timeline because it makes him feel good. >> all right, congresswoman, thank you. dr. ruiz, you have one minute to replay. >> she once again speaks a big game, but has failed to really lead in this manner. one is you voted to get us into iraq and president obama got us out and also, he killed osama bin laden. and al qaeda right now is the

weakest it's ever been. but we cannot -- we cannot let our guard down. we have to go after the terrorists and make sure they never strike again. and we have to ensure that there are no growing cells anywhere in the world and make sure that we have our resources there. now, she talks about our veterans and our soldiers. we need to bring home our troops from afghanistan, but more importantly, we need to respect our troops that are in combat and harm's way. you voted to freeze their combat pay. you said no to an increase in pay for our soldiers who risk their lives for us, yet you voted nine times to increase your pay. >> thank you, dr. ruiz. congresswoman, you have 30 seconds. >> we all know not all bills that come out of congress are good. our overall record is absolutely supporting our troops and an increase in pay, absolutely. but what startles me and frightens me about you, too, dr. ruiz, is this -- we are not safer today because osama bin laden is dead. you and your sympathizers would like to say that we are, but libya is proof that we are not.

president obama, yes, would like to tell the american people everything's cool now. that is why they lied about the cover-up in libya. that is why they denied the fact that it was a terrorist attack in the beginning. that is why they blamed america and american film, stupid film, i would add, but that is why they blamed a film. they blamed america before they blamed the terrorists. >> thank you so much. now, elizabeth. >> another question for you, dr. ruiz -- in 1998, the first year the congresswoman was elected, then house speaker, newt gingrich, pledged to save the salton sea. yet they admitted that lawmakers have not made enough progress. we have not heard you address the issue on the campaign trail, what would it take to move the issue beyond just rhetoric and empty promises? is there a point where the federal government seizes control of the project? dr. ruiz? >> thank you for bringing this up, because it really brings very pleasant memories of my father taking me there to fish and having picnics with the family.

now we're seeing dead fish and a stink that is unbearable. and this is somewhere where congresswoman has failed to deliver. she continues to talk a big game. she promised in her first election that she would fix the sea. 14 years later it has not been fixed. i don't know what stinks more, a broken promise or the salton sea. in fact, this is a great opportunity right now for us to revive that salton sea so that we can have it as a hot spot for tourism, so that other children can fish with their fathers, so we can develop geothermal energy and boost our economy. and the way we're going to go about doing it is public/private partnerships with local input and authority so that we can come together and stop this bickering and attack talk and all this other stuff that congresswoman bono mack is so adept at and skilled, but really come up with some problem- solving solutions.

and that's what's missing in congress, and that's what's missing in congresswoman bono mack. >> all right, thank you, dr. ruiz. congresswoman, you have one minute. >> thank you. first of all, let me go to this constant bickering that i'm hearing about bickering. you have done nothing, dr. ruiz, at all to take responsibility. you haven't even had a plan for the sea until now that it's been asked of you. clearly you don't understand the complexities of the sea. i would love to know what your thoughts are on the quantification settlement agreement. how do we take control from the state of california? this is what it's all about, dr. ruiz. i and others, including partners like senator feinstein, senator denise due chaney have also been working very hard on the salt and sea.

time is of the essence. right now is an opportunity to finally get the support of neighboring communities, all the way to the city of los angeles. i've called for two congressional hearings as soon as possible into the matter of the salt and sea. the salt and sea. but dr. ruiz, this thing you're bickering about bickering is getting old. i'd like to point to people -- >> time, congresswoman. >> thank you. >> dr. ruiz, you have 30 seconds. >> yes. this is another example of a failed promise and failure to lead. she's had 14 years and we see she is still talking about the same thing. nothing has happened. nothing has got done. the other thing is -- and i think one of the reasons is because you're so out of touch, you're so out of sight. you're harder to find than waldo unless people pay to see you. it's very difficult. so we have to make sure that we have true leadership and bring people together in a forum, you know, so that we can start solving this problem. >> all right, thank you so much. we're continuing along now. erica with the next question. >> congresswoman, the tenor much the campaign has certainly changed in recent weeks. dr. ruiz's campaign has painted

you as an out-of-touch beaurocrat who shows disdain for the district by joking with the radio host who describes a district as a third-world toilet. you've described dr. ruiz as further to the left than nancy pelosi, and recently uncovered that ruiz was arrested while protesting in college. do you think he's been unfair and how do you respond to the attacks on your own character? >> thank you, erica, great question. as i said in my popping statement i thought we'd go into this debate debating the issues. but clearly dr. ruiz's character is definitely worth looking at. i'm very, very frightened by what i've seen. he said it was an incident a few moments ago, that he had an incident. he had six years where he led protests, demanding that people crush plymouth rock and all that it stood for. by the way, i'm wondering, even to the press i'll ask the question -- he said it was police brutality, it was their fault. they were the bad guys, they were the aggressors. but then he signed -- and we

have the signed statement from ruiz that retracted that, that there was no police brutality. i don't who he is. this to me is critically important. let me explain why this matters. other than the fact that yes, he said crush plymouth rock and all that it stands for and led these protests. questions come up when you're a member of congress that are critically important, questions like this -- do you support reading a terrorist his miranda rights? that's one. another one -- do you support trying a terrorist in the city of new york? that's two. these are very important questions. the character that dr. ruiz has exemplified during his six years at harvard medical school are very troubling. it's absolutely important that the people of this district know who he is. >> all right, doctor, one minute. >> you know, she says she wants to talk about the issue and her opening statement was pretty much a complete accusation and she's sticking to the accusation, which is completely false.

congresswoman, read the investigation, ok? i got arrested for protecting a native-american elder. now, the other thing is that all the charges were dropped. the city paid $100,000 for native american scholarship funds. they erected two plaques in connection with their heritage. you bring up something in the past to cover up your disdain of the present. you laugh at the poverty of people in your district and called it a third-world toilet. you showed disdain to our seniors, our middle class and students, and now native- americans. i'm appalled. you want to charge our seniors $6,000 a year for a private voucher coupon care for their medicare. and now you're running away from that. you're also taxing the middle class under the ryan plan. that is disdain today.

>> all right, dr. ruiz. so do you want a 30-second rebuttal of the campaign? >> of course, i do. this is critically important. was there police brutality or was there not? was it an elder or a child? these things, folks, are in the press. they are in "the boston herald," they are in the harvard newspaper. they are documented. they are written. they're spelled out for people to see. it is critically important that people know that who he's saying he is right now is not who he is. further, what i said in that email message was that the city councilman should have been held accountable for allowing durhamville to be the third- world condition that it was and that it continues to be. have your party release the entire interview. release the interview that exonerates me. >> we're down to the last couple of questions. elizabeth, you have the floor. >> dr. ruiz, in 2010 a bipartisan federal commission unveiled the plan to cut the

nation's deficit by $4 trillion through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. the plan was never voted on in congress. do you agree with any or all with what the commission came up with? what other efforts do you think the country needs to take on to cut the country's debt, which now exceeds $16 trillion? >> debt and our deficit are very important issues that we need to tackle and they're a matter of national security. and this is one of the starkest contrasts between congresswoman bono mack and myself. you see, congresswoman bono mack wants to put the deficit and the burden of our debt on the shoulders of our seniors, our middle class and our students. by turning medicare into a private voucher system and charging our seniors $6,000 a year for their health care costs on average, by cutting pell grants and stafford loans who rely on those for their college education and she's voted to increase taxes on the

middle class through the ryan plan. all of this in order to keep tax breaks for multi- millionaires and tax breaks and subsidies for corporations who ship jobs overseas. we're going to reduce the deficits by bringing home our troops from afghanistan, by making sure that we create jobs right here in the district, by making sure that we decrease taxes on the middle class and small businesses, and by allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices with our pharmaceutical companies so that we can tackle the real problem, which is our health care costs and eliminate unnecessary procedures and redundant tests. >> all right, thank you, dr. ruiz. congresswoman, you have one minute. >> i don't think he understood the question, because what he just said, he's going to reduce the debt by not having so many medical tests, which, by the way, is a major part of obama care. obama care is what cut medicare by $716 billion on. let me tell you a few specific

things i would do immediately to cut the debt. first of all, i would repeal obama care as quickly as possible. secondly, i would defund the high-speed rail in central california, which nobody wants, nobody thinks we can afford, nobody wants to pay for it. i would look for agencies like the n.e.a. and p.d.s. and, yes, it's time for you to make it on your own. not only that, i would do everything we could again. get that debt down. lower those interest rates. lower the interest that we're paying every single day. everybody pays that, the middle class, every single person, senior, young and old. i'm tired out of hearing dr. ruiz it's always one group of people against another. you know, we can save medicare, dr. ruiz. i know we can save it. we can save it for this generation, we can save it if you're 55 and over. but you know what else, dr. ruiz? we can save it for our generation and our children's generation and our grandchildren's as well, but not by ignoring the problem. >> thank you, congresswoman. dr. ruiz, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> congresswoman bono mack thinks the idea of saving

medicare is to charge our seniors and she's made this statement about obama care cutting $716 billion in medicare benefits. that's simply not true. there were cost savings. in fact, congresswoman bono mack voted for those exact same savings under the ryan plan. and in the words of president clinton, it takes some nerve to attack something that you voted for yourself. now what we need to do -- and this is a clear example. she wants to balance the deficit on the shoulders of our seniors, middle class and our students, while protecting tax breaks for multimillionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. >> dr. ruiz, thank you so much. we go to the last question of the night. erica, you have the honors. >> congresswoman, critics have described bolt of you as politicians who will simply vote in lock-step with your political party leadership. can you name some policies that president obama has implemented that you support? and dr. ruiz, when it's your turn, can you name policy

points where you disagree with president obama? >> thank you, erica, sure. i support the bills that i passed out of the house and got passed out of the senate and made it to the president's desk and signed into lot. the safety improvement act is one. i support other bills that he has passed that he has supported. it's a lot easier for me to say what i don't support. we haven't talked about energy. i need to get energy because it's so critically important, so i am going to pivot. president obama wants to kill the keystone pipeline. how far in the world is he going to increase our energy supply by killing the keystone excel pipeline? yes, i disagrees with him on that. let me tell you something else. president obama does not meet with the congress. he doesn't even meet with republicans. he doesn't talk to republicans. when they pass obama care, they did it without any republican votes. they actually made a point, when i said to my colleagues i would love to work with you, because a lot of the parts of health care improvement i believe in. you know what was said to me by

one of my colleagues? are you kidding? if nancy pelosi knew i talked to you, she would kill me. that is what we're up against. let me tell you do i support a lot of obama's initiatives? no. if i were to cast my vote tomorrow, my absentee ballot would be for romney. >> thank you very much. dr. ruiz, you have a minute, and you can talk about either things you would support or things that you would not support. >> this is a very important question, and i really want the people who have been viewing this debate tonight to really see that she has clearly demonstrated why congress is broken. imagine working in a committee with this type of language and language of gridlocks and attacks. now, i do not believe that we should eliminate the bush tax cuts for those that make over $250,000 a year. we should eliminate those only

for those making $1 million or more. i also don't agree with president obama increasing the premiums for our veterans and their tricare insurance. you see, this is something that's very important. congresswoman bono mack has gone washington. she speaks her party line like no other. and i am not running for the democratic party, i am not running for nancy pelosi or president obama, i'm running for you right here in this district as a public servant. i will always run for you. and she continues to ask, who am i? i was humbly given the person of the year by "the desert" magazine. i was given the humanitarian of the year by the rancho mirage chamber of commerce. i've always been a public servant and stood up hard for the residents of this district and i will do so for our seniors, our middle class and our students right here. >> thank you, dr. ruiz. congresswoman, you have one minute for this rebuttal.

>> oh, thank you. i actually don't know quite what to say to that rebuttal, because i have no idea what he stands for. he's saying something here again today, but folks, please go online and research it for yourself. it really is appalling that all of the research and the data about who you were -- you know, again, let me remind people -- 2002, dr. ruiz, you led a protest while we had our troops in afghanistan. 2002 your cohorts said we stand with the people of afghanistan and palestine. is that worth smiling about, dr. ruiz? i don't think it's worth smiling about. but i think that's very, very, very serious. people need to know that. you know, it is important to recognize your very first vote, unless you want to say otherwise, and i'll gladly defer the time to you, that your very first vote would be for nancy pelosi for speaker. is that true? or is it not true? >> dr. ruiz, would you like to respond? >> she asks a question i would like to bring up, the issue of, once again, she knows how to

attack, but she doesn't know how to create solutions. >> can you answer the question, though? >> no. what i want to talk about is she made a very important issue about non-discrimination in the workplace, that she has protected that. in fact, you voted for the lilly ledbetter, act which would ensure equal pay for women and you voted against that. so i can't let you get away with all these false claims that you're making. >> doctor, i know you've never been in business, you don't understand what it's like. women get paid. there are equal-pay laws. i'm rebutting, if i might. >> every physician -- >> dr. ruiz, let her finish. congresswoman, please. >> the people are concerned about security, they're concerned about national security. they're concerned about domestic security. they want to know they can pay their bills. the lilly ledbetter pay act was strictly out of nancy pelosi. you didn't answer the question if you would vote for nancy

pelosi or not. we know the answer. >> we could go on for hours clearly, but unfortunately the hour is quickly coming to a close many time now for the last words from our candidates. dr. ruiz, you're up first. >> thanks again to "the desert sun" for hosting this debate and a special thanks to those of you who devoted time to watching it. engaged and informed voters are so essential to a successful democracy. as candidates we owe it to you to tell you who we are and where we differ. the freedom to disagree and speak our mind is the most american of traditions and values. but there is a big difference between disagreeing and character assassination. congresswoman, i disagree with your views and priorities, but i don't question your patriotism. i think it's a shame that you question mine. that's at the heart of what's wrong with washington. how do you expect to solve america's problems if you don't

even believe in the right of your opponents to express their views without calling them un- american? the congresswoman and i do have very different views, and we heard a lot of them tonight at their core. the differences are about who we stand up for. the congresswoman stands up for billionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas at the expense of the middle class and retirees. we've all heard a lot about job creators tonight, and congresswoman bono mack likes to use ha phrase in previous talks as a debating weapon and in her speeches as if anyone were actually against creating jobs. we're all for job creation. the problem is that congresswoman bono mack has lost touch with who the real job creators are. i think our teachers who give our kids the skills they need to go to college and get a job, i think they are job creators. but congresswoman bono mack voted to cut education by $115 billion. i think a middle-class family

that can afford to buy a house is a job creator, especially in our area where construction is such an important part of the economy. but the ryan budget that congresswoman bono mack voted for would have increased taxes on the middle class by $1,400 a year. i think a company that hires american workers is a job creator, but congresswoman bono mack voted to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. and to add insult to injury, she spent over $80,000 of taxpayer money on her own luxury car and voted nine times to raise her own pay. washington has changed mary bono mack and she's lost touch with the people she's supposed to represent -- the seniors who count on medicare and social security, the families that work hard every day to build a better life for their children, the homeowners trying to make the next mortgage payment. those are the people i want to give voice to. i would be honored to have your

votes. god bless you and god bless america. >> all right, thank you, dr. ruiz. congresswoman, you have the last word tonight. >> thank you. i'd like to thank "the desert sun" for hosting tonight's debate and thank all of you who are watching at home tonight. i want to thank you for the support you've given me and the tremendous honor of being your congresswoman. we all know that today america faces tough challenges. the world is dangerous and unstable. economies are failing. america's unemployment rate is too high, and our quality of life is shrinking. we can and we must do better. i believe in america. i believe in our people and i believe in our future. we faced difficulty times before and we've always come through better and more united, and we will again. there are so many stark differences between my opponent and me. the most fundamental difference is how we view the role of government. i believe free markets and the free people go hand-in-hand. government should be a guardian of our freedoms and our

liberties, because individual freedoms must be protected. my opponent not only believes in a bigger government, he has campaigned donors who illustrate just how far to the left he is willing to go. nancy pelosi has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into his campaign. he has received financial support from sean penn, a man who's close to the venezuelan dictator, who is no friend of america. dr. ruiz received support from an infamous billionaire family who has poured millions into radical left wing causes throughout the world. dr. ruiz represents one the most far-left candidates to ever seek a congressional office. his history and his involvement with radical groups are shocking. but i want your support and your vote not because of everything that is wrong with dr. ruiz, but because you and i share a belief about what is right with america. we know that by controlling government spending, reducing taxes and eliminating the overreach of government we will

unleash the spirit and the power of american small businesses and entrepreneurs. freedom, free markets and a free people will always prevail. i ask you tonight for your vote so together we will continue to build and fight for a better america. that is my commitment to you. thank you, god bless you, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. >> all right, thank you, congresswoman. and we'd like to thank congresswoman mary bono mack and dr. ruiz for joining us tonight. we thank you for your time in this very important debate in this very important upcoming election. again, it doesn't matter who you vote for, but vote for sure on november 6, cast that ballot. >> we'd also like feedback on our facebook pages. i want to thank my fellow panelists as well for joining us tonight and helping us prepare the questions and, of course, my co-anchor, liz belt,

for getting in there and putting this all together. i want to thank everybody here at krmi 6 and thank the both of you for coming don't. we really do appreciate it. we want that thank you for watching. more debate later tonight on our stations. on krmi6.com. kmir.com. thank you so much for watching and we'll see you back here tonight at 11:00. >> good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in his weekly radio and internet address, president obama spoke about the auto industry and other sales in his first four years in office. the republican address is delivered by markwayne mullin,

who is running for congress. he talks about the challenges facing his plumbing business and and other small businesses. >> hello, everybody. every year around this time car companies start rolling out their new products. it is detroit's chance to show what they have been working on, the latest and greatest. and they have some good stuff coming out. the auto industry was not just struggling. it was a flatlining. gm and chrysler were on the verge of collapse. more than 1 million jobs across the country were on . not just although jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small-business owners, and everyone who depends on this great american industry. but we refused to throw in the trial -- the towel and do nothing.

we refuse to let detroit go bankrupt. and three years later, that that is paying off in a big white. gm is back. ford and chrysler -- in a big way. gm is back. ford and chrysler are back. and we are not just making more cars and trucks. we are making better ones. we have raised fuel standards so through the next decade, cars and light trucks will nearly double their gas mileage. that means you will only have to fill up every two weeks instead of every week. that is good for your wallet, good for our economy, and good for the environment. the technology that makes it happen will help america stay on the cutting edge for decades to come. just this week, gm announced they planned to hire 1500 workers for a new research center in michigan to make sure the high-tech cars of tomorrow are designed and built right

here in america. i have also signed a new trade agreement into law because i want to see cars from -- all of this is something that american people can and should be proud of. is a reminder that there is nothing we can do. the next time we -- you see one of those brand new 2013 models on tv or on the lot, think how far we have come together. think about the hard work and can-do spirit of the american people. more of those cars and trucks are being manufactured by american workers and american companies. it will save you money at the pump. that is what america is all about. we get knocked down, we get back up. thanks and have a good weekend. >> hi, i am markwayne mullin.

i met and married my high-school sweetheart here. we run a plumbing company here. a lot of people call me a congressman. i do not want to be a man of the congress. i want to represent the values of my fellow oklahomans. their top priority is job. so is my. after i graduated high school, my dad came to me and said, if you want to take over the family plumbing business, it is yours. my dad was having major health problems. he was not able to run the business. the people he trusted ran the company into the ground. it was carrying over half a million dollars in debt and much of that was past due. we now have more than 80 trucks on the road, as oklahoma for

largest plumbing company. i am proud of what we have accomplished, especially thinking about how hard it was when we started. many people i meet on the campaign trail have the same challenges. do we really think the country can be turned around? my answer is hands down, yes. if we let small business people like me get to work. i know where i would start. i spend 40 cents of every dollar the company takes in to comply with education's. yes, more than 40 cents. when i first started using that figure, people would say wait. you are talking about taxes, right? >> no. this is just to comply with regulations. it is costing 1.7 trillion -- $1.7 trillion per year.

this is before obamacare takes effect. is it any wonder the jobs are overseas and so many job-seekers have stopped looking for work? if we are serious about keeping jobs here and bring in jobs home, we need to stop bird nearing -- burdening small businesses with excessive regulation. mitt romney gets it. he is supporting small businesses with his jobs plan. the republicans in congress have passed several bipartisan common-sense proposals to cut regulations that cause an unnecessary cost and her jobs. before the government can implement any major regulation, unfortunately these jobs sale -- job bills have died in democratic senate said. because he piles on regulations that make it harder to hire,

work, and harder to do business in the u.s. they are not representing,". they are representing government. even as they push us toward the fiscal cliff, they want small business tax hikes so they have more money to spend on government. never mind that tax hikes would destroy 700,000 jobs. this is what i have to say about that keeping enough, mr. president. our economy does not need more regulation. it needs more certainty. when do not need more regulators. we need more representatives to understand what it takes to create jobs. thank you for listening and may god bless you and god bless the united states of america. >> on newsmakers, ohio congressman jim jordan discusses the 2012 campaign, including his battleground state of ohio. he also talked about what

congress might do in the lame duck session and whether the bush tax cuts should expire. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> our goal on "the communicators" this week is to look at the philosophies of president obama and governor romney when it comes to tech issues and explore any possible policies that could result from a second obama administration or a first from the administration. joining us in our discussion is john kneuer. he used to be the administrator of the national telecommunications and information administration under the george w. bush administration. and ed paisley is also joining as. he is from the american center for action fund. mr. paisley, if we could start

with you. how could you describe president obama's overall philosophy when it comes to detect and communications issues? >> i would include text, communications, and science. i think all three go together. the overall philosophy really is the overall philosophy really is